Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening everyone. Welcome to the October already October 2025 zoning board of appeals meeting town of Caramel. The board members names are on the days in front of you. We have Mike Carnazar, our code enforcement officer, and Greg Fulcchetti, town council with us this evening. The way we operate is we will ask you to come up. I'll swear you in. Whoever is going to speak, unless you're of counsel, I will swear you in. Um, we will hear your case. We will pull the board for any questions or comments and then we'll open it up to the public for any questions or comments. Once we close a case, there's no further input on that case whatsoever, please. So, let's keep that in mind. At the end of the evening, we will adjudicate and decide on the cases. So, if you want to stick around for your decision, you're welcome to. Otherwise, um you can catch it on the channels uh yeah 24

95. Yep. And uh or you can call the building department tomorrow and and find out the results. But uh I don't think it'll we only have five applicants this night, so you might want to stick around. All right. Will you all please stand and join me for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Our first case this evening is from Mark Anthony, a variation of section 156-15 seeking a use variance to permit three residential apartments in a single family zone. The property is located at 592 Long Pond Road, Mahopak, New York, and it's tax map 53.15-1-15. So, the code requires or allows a one family home. What's existing or provided is a two family with a garage and apartment over it and a variance required um variance required is the applicant seeks the use variance for to legalize three living units, two family use in main house with garage apartment. All right. And this evening is Frank. You'll represent. State your name and address for the record.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Frank J. Smith III, law office of Schilling and Smith, 1961 Route 6, Carmel, New York. On behalf of the applicant, Mark Anthony as trustee of the Mark Anthony revocable living trust. Mr. Anthony is joined with me this evening. The property is located at 592 Long Pond Road, Mayapac, New York. It is known as tax map number 53.15-1-15. It consists of a two-f family dwelling with a detached garage that contains an apartment on the second story. The parcel is approximately 74 acres and is located in the town's lowdensity residential zoning district. The relief requested this evening is a use variance to permit three residential units where only single family is permitted. Prior to the meeting, in support of the application, this office provided the board a completed ZBA application, photos of the premises, applicant affidavit and support, memorandum of law, a supplemental memorandum of law, a supplemental applicant statement, and an affirmation from a professional title attorney as to covenants and restrictions. First, a brief history. The applicant grew up and lived in Mayac for many years and continues to be a local business owner. In 2020, he began looking for a property uh to invest in for rental purposes. The subject property was purchased in October of 2020. At the time of purchase, the property was marketed as having three units and the premises was in the same configuration as it is today. That is two residential units in the main house along with a single residential unit located above the detached garage. During the course of the transaction, the applicant obtained a municipal report and that report contained a legal predate letter stating the premises was a legally predated six family. The applicant relied on his retained council to confirm that the three units were legal and the predate lever letter covered as much. The cost of ownership

of the premises is roughly $5,400 per month or $64,700 annually. This cost includes mortgage, tax, insurance, as well as management fees, lawn maintenance, pool maintenance, home heating oil, and other necessary repairs and maintenance. There are three rental units in the premises. The main unit, which is currently vacant, ordinarily rents for 2500 per month, generating $30,000 annually. The rear apartment in the main house rents for $1,922 per month, generating $23,64 annually. The apartment over the garage rents for $1,525 per month, generating $18,300 annually. Total roughly $71,300 in change per year. Losing the opportunity to rent any one of the three units would result in the property operating at a loss. During the course of this application, the main tenant in the main unit subsequently left. The $2,500 per month that that unit ordinarily generates is now gone and the property is operating at a loss. In February of this year, the applicant met with the building department and the legal predate letter was amended. Now, after believing that the premises was legally predated based upon the prior letter that stated six units, the predate letter was modified to permit three units. That predate letter would have adequately covered the premises as it sits. Thereafter, the applicant received a violation for more than one unit in a single family zone. And that's why we're here tonight. Prior to addressing the use variance criteria, I would like to spend a couple of moments addressing uh covenants and restrictions that were raised by an opposition letter that came uh prior to last month's meeting. In support of our position, we provided the board with an affirmation from a professional title attorney, Miss Georgianne Berte of Premier Abstract, that confirms that the covenants and

restrictions represented in the opposition letter do not encumber Mr. Anony's parcel. There are covenants and restrictions on that parcel, but they are not the same as the ones enumerated in the opposition letter. Furthermore, the question of covenants and restrictions is immaterial to the board's review of a use variance analysis. The Court of Appeals, New York State's highest appellet court, has routinely ruled that the use of land under a zoning ordinance versus use of land under a restrictive covenant are quote separate and distinct matters. The Court of Appeals in a case called Chambers vers Old Stone Hill Road Associates further opined that quote, "A zoning approval constitutes only a conclusion that the proposed comports with applicable zoning regulations. it should neither affect nor be affected by the existence of a private restrictive covenant. End quote. The Department of State in an opinion letter also states that quote the decision in chambers should serve as a reminder to local governments that their land use approval powers are not in any way affected by private restrictive covenants. As the board is aware, there are four criterias that must be met in order to grant a use variance. The first is that the property cannot yield a reasonable return. The second is that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. Third, if granted, the use will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. And lastly, that the hardship was not self-created. For the following reasons, I respectfully contend that the applicant satisfies this criteria. First, the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return. As previously presented, costs associated with the mortgage, insurance, taxes, upkeep, maintenance, and repairs total roughly 40 $5400 monthly or $64,700 annually. In order to meet or exceed this amount, the premises would require that all three units be rented. If one rental unit were to be disbanded, the

premises would be operating at a loss. For example, the property does not have a tenant the main unit currently. Mr. Anthony is apprehensive to put a new tenant in there with the uncertainty of this application and doesn't want to move somebody in just to get rid of them in the event that we do not prevail. Assuming he lost that rental unit permanently, he would receive $3,447 in rent monthly, which would put him at a near $2,000 per month loss. A different example would be using the the unit above the garage. Assuming the two house units were to be rented at the current rate and the above garage unit, which is the least expensive of the three, were lost, the applicant would raise $4,422 per month, which represents a loss of close to $1,000 per month. These examples uh represent the necessity of retaining all three units, and as such, I argue that he cannot realize a reasonable return. Second is whether the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. In this instance, I argue that the circumstances are unique. When the applicant purchased the property, he relied on council to ensure that the units he was purchasing were legal. At the time of purchase, the pre-date letter issued by the building department recognized more units than what were there. The property was not expanded. It was just thought that that letter would cover the units as they exist. This was Mr. Anony's first rental property and as such he relied on the representations made in making the decision to purchase the investment. Purchasing with the understanding of legality makes this unique in the sense that we are now seeking to legalize something that he thought was legal to begin with. I contend that the particular circumstance is unique to this property and to this particular property owner. Third is whether if granted there would be a negative impact to the neighborhood. In this case, there would be no negative impact. It is a residential use in a residential zone. It is not entirely

inconsistent with what the town intended, but it's obviously not permitted. In addition, the current configuration of two rental units in the main house along with the rental unit above the garage has been in existence for many years. During the time of its existence, I am unaware of any grievances or complaints related to its use as a three-unit rental. And as the board is aware, there was one letter of opposition. For those reasons, there would be no negative change to the character of the neighborhood. Lastly is whether the hardship was self-created. In this case, it wasn't. As previously stated, the applicant intended to purchase the property with three residential units, and at the time of purchase, he believed that they were legally covered under the initial predate letter. Thereafter, that predate letter was amended to state that the three units were legally pre-existing. That amendment covered the condition as it presently exists and was further relied on by the applicant. Following the predate letters amendment is when the property was issued a violation. The applicant did not create the issue and is merely seeking to legalize what he thought was already legal. As such, the hardship was not self-created. Based upon these reasons, I argue that the applicant has met the use variance criteria and respectfully request that this board grant the variance as requested. Thank you for the opportunity to present. Myself and Mr. Anthony are available for any questions.

Frank, do we know how long it's been a three property or uh three unit property prior to your client purchasing? It's difficult to discern. Um there's really nothing in the records that relate to it being used as a three. It was in that configuration at the time that it was purchased. Um, we do have a neighbor who's here in support who was in the house and he can explain that there was two in the main house for a period. Like like a past tenant or a neighbor I guess would suffice someone who who could

and and I will say that our office tried to contact predecessors in title to try and establish this because as you know I would much rather try to find a legally predated use as opposed to ask for a use variance. Um, but we couldn't establish it with any certainty. previous owner got a variance to allow him to put the law office above the garage if I remember correctly. Right? Wasn't it something like that? Yeah. When he came in front of this board, but I don't know exactly the year. It's probably on your application. It should be on the application. Yeah. I don't have the application cuz it's except it's not. It says there's no previous appeals on the property at all. There were two

one for the garage being too close to the property line and one for the law office above. I don't remember the lawyer's name, but it it did happen several years ago while I was here in the last 30 years. I don't remember if I was here. I think it was 2005 around there, but I I don't know with certainty. Five. I wasn't here yet. It was sometime after that. It could have happened in my tenure. I just I don't remember what I did 10 minutes ago. Same. Same. Um, so Mike, I have a question for you. So if this was to be granted, would it have to be deemed a three family home? Because if it's an accessory apartment, doesn't the person have to live there? If there's three units, it's three family. Yes. Multi.

It would be a three family. So then it will get assessed as a three family. Okay. Which right now it's a one family with an assessment accessory. So it's going to change. And it's a very it will definitely change with the assessor. And it's also a very interesting assessment card. It shows that the accessory apartment showed up upon Mr. Anony's purchase, but previously in the chain, it did have a different code that would relate to multi-purpose, multi-use. So, I'm not sure what the assessor had done then, but uh that's how it stands now. Did you you didn't look at the old card of what the old cards had nothing?

It didn't say anything specifically related to the use. Yeah. And then if you look at uh the county has this new system. I'm not sure if you looked at it for their tax map. It does a pretty good list of it and it also shows the code. I think you know 200 is a regular single family residence. 210 210. It was it was previously listed as a 280. Um and I could give you the definition because family. Yep. Yeah. Um

it's a 215 according to it's 215 now. It was previously 210 but there was use as 280 which my understanding is like a multi-use multi-purpose uh distinction I guess they would call it. And again, as you guys are aware, the the assessor doesn't check with the building department to make sure what they're assessing on is legal or not, right? Is that true? That is very true. And not a do realtor, a resident uh John, you have questions?

Yeah. Hi, uh counselor, may I ask um in 2021 your client purchased a property and what were what's the mortgage and what is the terms of that mortgage? So, just to be clear, I I know that in the affidavit it said 2021. That was a deed transfer from Mr. Anthony as an individual to um the the trust. Correct. So, it was purchased in 2020. But if you want to hop up and you have to swear in Good evening. State your name and address for the record and I'll swear you. Mark Anthony 24608 Oak View uh plays Pontaorta, Florida 339 80 right hand. Other right hand.

My other right hand. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So I'll help you guide. I swear to God. Guide sir. So the question was uh how much is monthly mortgage? Are you looking for amount or monthly or the total uh amount that was the loan you know from the size of the loan when you purchased? Oh what's that? 4 80,000 roughly. That's at like a 30 year or 15 year. Correct. How many years are left? 25. Okay. All right. Good. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you. Absolutely.

When did you say that the pre-date letter was amended? The pre-date letter was amended in February of this year. Um there is a strikeout of the six. It states three with the initials MC which are believed to be Mr. Pernaza and it says 21825. I didn't want to leave that in the file with the six on it obviously for obvious reasons. Right. All right guys down here any you both answered my asked my question. Does the use conf conflict with um the association?

So that was the covenants and restrictions that we talked about earlier. So there is a provision that says that uh it should shall be used as a single family residence. However, covenants and restrictions do not come into consideration when it comes to being in compliance with the local zoning ordinance. Also, there's a provision of real property actions and proceedings law section 2001 that states that the statute of limitations for someone to challenge the breach of a covenant and restriction is either two years from the construction of the item going up or two years upon it being used in a way inconsistent with that covenant restriction.

And just for context, we had a case where there was a covenant restriction. We didn't deal with it if I remember correctly because it's a civil matter not a not a zoning board matter. My understanding it's civil, right? But it's something you should take into consider consideration but it's not the right Mike would do we have the file would it have when that garage was built or that office above the garage was built? Yeah, the garage was built in the last 15 20 years. Yeah. So it's it's been in the neighborhood. It's not out of character. I mean, I remember seeing that garage, you know, driving around that road, but then they came to put the office above and I don't think they ever put the office above, but the lawyer came in front of the board to get that. Okay.

My recollection is that the garage was uh built by two predecessors in title. There was a guy parking tow trucks or something there at the time. Yeah, that sounds familiar. And um and I I can't recall if he got a variance to permit the tow trucks or if it was just related to the garage and he meant and there was neighbor opposition that the tow trucks were parked there. I think the condition included no parking of you could park a empty tow truck but not a tow truck with a vehicle on it or behind it or anything like that. But I think that's what it was.

Yeah, it's going back because uh I think the issue was that the tow truck company's phone number was the landline at the house. Yeah. And there was questions whether or not it's the business being run out of here or is he just driving his trucks home. So that was uh not the owner that we bought from but before that owner. All right. Um do you anybody want to hear from the neighbor? Sure. Yeah, why not? It's good to have it on record since we have just your experience. State your name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Joe Rayano. Uh 20 Hillside Drive, May, New York. Okay, raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help you God. I'm sorry.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? So help you God. Yes. All right. Just uh I remind everyone, please speak into the microphones. This meeting is being recorded for minutes. So Okay. Um so you witnessed this this three or Yes. He's been a great neighbor and I have no problem with uh issuing this apartment or whatever. No, I get that. But uh are you aware of the history of of the property? Has it been a a two two unit main house and one unit over the garage for as long as how long can how long can you attest to that? Remember? I've been living there for 40 years.

All right. So, how long are you aware of it being three separate units? Uh five year. I'm not exactly sure on that. Just, you know, Mark's a friend of mine. Okay. So, within your tenure of your friendship with Mark, it's always been a three. Yes. Excellent. What about prior? I'm sorry. What? What about prior to your friendship with Mark? Do you remember it being three? No. Okay. Okay. Anybody have any other questions for Yes. So Joe, you said he's a great neighbor, which I bet he is, but he doesn't live there. No. So the tenants have been great neighbors.

Yeah, there's no problems ever. I mean, yes. Quiet tenants. Good. Okay. Anybody have any other questions? No. All right. Um, at this point, Frank, do you have anything else? See if there's anybody in the audience who wants I will. No, that's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay. And I'll at this point I'll open it up to the uh public if anyone wishes to be heard on this application. Sir, do me a favor. If you come up to speak, just write your name when you're done speaking. Write your name um contact number, address, and all that stuff on that piece of paper on the deis.

All right. Just speak into the microphone, please. State your name and address for the record. My name is David Kaplan. You could turn it down to your mouth if if you prefer. My name is David Kaplan. Okay. What's your address? Uh my legal address is 8 Mary a Lane in Delmare, New York. And raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help your God. I do. Go ahead. Um, my family has been to Mayapac for 50 years. We're at 70 Hillside Drive. I'm not a lawyer like Frank. So, sir, you got you got to speak to the microphone, please.

I'm not a lawyer like Frank. So, I will use Helen Cumble's letter to address some of the issues that I'd like to address. And then from there, there are a couple other issues I'd like to address. Sure. of Helen Kl is the neighbor and she's against this granting the zoning. Uh she's in Washington DC today. I don't know what she's doing, but just for the record, she submitted two letters just so Yes. And I'm reading for the letter because I'm going to go from there.

Okay. Okay. All right. Look, do me a favor. Turn the microphone down to your mouth and you can look down. Yeah. And speaking to it at the same time.

So, first I'd like to point out the garage is quite close to the side line. The deed requires 25 ft. Indeed, the distance between the side of the garage and the pavement of pleasant load varies along it lays from only 19 to 22 feet. Well, Helen's no surveyor and she doesn't have access to the maps. And why is this important? Because we are originally designed to be a single use, single family neighborhood on approximately a half hour half acre plot.

All right. But it's not out of character for for that neighborhood or for most other neighborhoods in in the town. But go ahead. The concern is if the zoning board grants this variance and that variance and another variance, the neighborhood will change. Not always necessarily, but go ahead.

Not necessarily. 1927 map of the neighborhood. It shows fairly wide roads. I happen to know the word road is 30 feet 33 feet wide in the original plans. In her letter she says 18 19 to 20 ft. It's actually the house is much closer to the road than that. Here's the map. from the roadway improvement plan for the Wong Pond Association. Would you like to see it? It shows that the road doesn't cover the 33 ft.

Forgive me. I'm trying to be precise. Are you talking about the that that house? The garage. The garage is almost on the road, but I think they came for a variance and they got that granted to build that exist. So that already exists. So that's legal at this point. So the And the varian said they would put it where? What? Whatever they got approved for. I believe this is about a use. It's probably like 10 ft from the road. So we're more talking about can there be an apartment in that building. We're not talking about the building itself. that is already illegal and allowed under the law

as talking about an apartment in the building. I'm looking into talking about a neighborhood. All right. But Will Will's trying to tell you it's use. It's about the use, not the actual layout of the structures and where they exist. And that's to my point. And we would like to limit the usage to the two families that are in there now and not add a third family. talking about changing the neighborhood. I mean, how many families will want to add houses on their lots? I don't think anyone added the house, but go ahead.

Okay. And again, it's difficult, although the applicant seems to have met all the criteria to obtain a use variance, it's a very stringent um criteria to do so. And so the fact that we're here and it looks like he's met it, it may be difficult for others to do the same. Okay, keep that in mind as well. So each case is judged on its own merits. Basically, each case is on merit. And there's different circumstances and hardships. Correct. Okay. Right.

And there are deeds. Okay. Uh the lawyer counselor made that point that the deed is not, you know, the deed doesn't mean anything not held to the covenant deed. If that's what you're talking about, there's a deed from May Pac. Excuse me. Long Association the original Long Pond Associates. Long Yeah, Long Pond Association. Not from the Long Pond Association. That's what they it says in the letter. You're right, Mike.

It says shall be so restricted to limited to the type of building they may be corrected on. No more than one single family private residence for one family on each halfacre land. This is from September 1938. Mhm. So I I don't know if this is a question maybe for council, but if the association has issue with this, could they go after him?

Yeah, absolutely. The covenant is in favor of a of a group of individuals. I mean, we could we're looking at this from a zoning perspective, but if you are part of a homeowners association that has this written into your bylaws or whatever you're not a homeowners association, just it's in the original deed from the Mayapac Falls Park. Regardless, the case in front of us is just for the use variance itself, not a deed or or covenants that are private to that property and to that association or that tax map. Right. That's a civil matter. Well, Helen feels that it would

Okay, we we're in receipt of her letter if that's what you're trying to move on to the next topic. So, I'm part of the board of the Long Pond Association, and this is what Mr. Anthony said to me, said to Jill, Jill Sanders McDer, who is on the board. As you may or may not know, I live out of state. I purchased 592 Lone Pond Roads about four years ago as an investment property. He's within his rights to do so. I'm sorry.

Anybody with their rights to to buy a property is investment. Yes. Everyone has the right to privy investment. And if it goes sour, not as anticipated, does everyone else have to pay the price? As far as Mark Anthony understood, he was sold that this was an existing three correct unit property. So he bought it as an investment property because if that wasn't there, he could never get this use variance that's been established and I'm sure he would have never bought the property if he knew that this was the situation was his

council. I don't know his counsel at the time, but that's not my business. That was his business, his responsibility. Yeah. And he acted upon that information accordingly. He writes in this letter, "I began the process a year ago. Paperwork originally in my file was missing. Clarification was approved at a six family dwelling, three, and I only want three along with an amendment of the building department. It could be a three-unit multi- family property. All previous papers were gone. What papers? Does he have proof?

Do you have proof that they weren't? That's a good point. Mhm. Do I have proof that somebody's telling a good story? Maybe. Is that letter that you're reading a letter that was written by Mr. Anthony? Yes. It's written to to the board. I presume it's written to the board. Okay, Joe sent it over to me, which again is consistent with what he's testified here today and his lawyer has stated as well. Yeah. Well, it may be consistent, but the aim or purpose may not be. C can I have the context of this letter? Like what why was he writing it and who was it written to?

It's written to Jill Sans McDerm. She's been on the board of the LPA for many years and that's probably the person that he knew to write to. She's in the community. But but why would why was he penning this letter to her? Right. He was looking for support from the board. I'm on the board and I'm not supporting it. Okay. Again, that's a board matter. That's not a zoning board matter. All right. But I live there and I'm expressing an opinion. Okay, that's fine. Weird. Do you have any more points to make?

One, if I do not get to zoning, I will be forced to sell, significantly affecting my retirement to nest egg. Zillow said that he bought the house at $447,000. It's got the house now at $635,000. I doubt he'll be adversely affected by the sale of the building. Nobody's got a crystal ball. I wish I did. So, all right. Thank you. You're welcome. Anybody else wish to be heard on this application? [Applause] All right. I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing. Some moved.

Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I. All right. Thank you. All right. All right. Our next case this evening is number two, Fernando Medina for variation of section 156-19 A1A seeking to keep a 6ft fence in front of the house. The property is located at 44 Kelly Road, Carmel, New York, and it's tax map 35 55.15-1-9. The code requires or allows 4 foot front and what's provided is six feet. So variance of two feet is being sought. They are not here again. John. John, this is the They're the ones I walked in with last time. I see I see nobody coming up. I'm like, is could it be happening again?

Yeah. With 20 kids. Yes. I wish I knew that before I read. That's okay. Thank you.

All right. New applications. We'll move on with um application for Donna Vignyona Palmierro for a variation of section 156-9 seeking an area of erance for permission to retain existing shed and existing gazebo properties located at 52 Baldwin Lane Mahopak New York and tax map 5565.10-2-27 the code requires and allows for the 10 10 ft for the rear um pertaining to the shed what's existing as 1.8 ft. So a variance of 8.2 feet are required. And for the rear of the shed, oh it's corner lot. That's right. Two corners. Uh what's existing is1 ft.

Mhm. And a variance of 9.89 ft is required or s being sought. And then for the gazebo, it's a 10-ft rear is the setback what the code requires. It's a zero provided and a 10-ft variance is being sought. Mhm. Are they not here either? No. Here she goes. I was going to say thanks again. No, I'm getting my my speaking voice practice here. Either or. Just what? Just turn it down to your mouth so we can pick you up for uh minutes. State your name and address for the record. Donna Peliro. My home address is 71 McManis Road South Patterson, New York. Okay.

Um hello everybody and thank you for Oh, okay. raise your right hand. where to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, help you God. I do. Thank you. All right. Bring bring us up to speak.

So, this is probably very clear. Um, this is my family's house. My father built it starting in 1960. And I believe they got the CFO and moved in in 1962. Um, he built the house himself. He built the shed. He built the gazebo. Um, by hand with my four older brothers mixing cement and helping him that, um, on the two, it's a corner lot. The two properties that are budding up to it, there were no houses at the time. It was, we were the Mayopac originals, the Lake Cassie originals. It was just

one of the first houses in Cassie, right? Correct. It was just all wooded land. Um the house on the right side of the property, I think it was built in the 70s at some point and Simone's to the other side was probably built in the late '7s. Um they never I don't know of them having any problem with So these two structures were there soon after the house was built. Correct. I I I even have some recollection. I was maybe four years old at that point. Okay. Don't start counting my age. All right. All right. Um I'll give you a pass.

Um my dad came to some sort of meeting here a couple times and Mr. Mole was the building inspector building inspector code for um a while ago and there was discussion about the what we're calling now the shed. I think at that time they may have called it the dog house because my dog actually the dog actually lived in there and it had heat and it has a way in and out that the dog was able to go into the stone part and come out in the fence part. Is your father a mason? He was a carpenter. because it looked like it was nice masonry that the shed has been there for a real long time. All the brothers had to do that

as as well as the uh gazebo. It's got a mason base good structure. It's not of doing work. It's not going to All right. Let me ask you this. Is what would be the cost to relocate both structures? Probably in the thousands, right? Yeah. I mean to take that shed down, it's all stone. Yeah, I see it. old stone that was dug up or carried in from quite honestly with the streets in the Bronx under the L. They started digging it up and my father was working construction jobs down there and bringing the stone up to build the shed. Um, you know,

all right. I am now in control of the house and I have to make some decisions and I have been told that if it went if it if I put it up for sale I can't sell it right until you clear this up here right and you know I'm trying to do the right thing without there being a a great financial let me ask you this there's no other property you can purchase to make it into conformance because you got you're landlocked your corner lot the structures have been there for 40, 50 years at least, not more. 60s something years. All right. So, uh I'm sure if the neighbors had complaints, they'd be here. I don't know if anyone's here. We'll ask that next, but we'll find out.

Um so, you know, we're establishing a record. You can't really There's no property you can purchase. It would be costly to move these right within the thousands. Would you agree? I would imagine just to haul the stone away. It's a small fortune. It's a lot of labor, never mind getting the machinery. that's going to dig up the whole lawn as it passes to bring out the stone. I'm sure it's built to survive a nuclear fall. Looks like it's it's inherent to the property. Um, all right. Board members, any any questions or comments? No. Do do you know, Donna, if the uh roof is okay on that shed, actually looks I was out there. I don't know water coming in it. I think it's getting aged. Yeah. You know,

it's that I was there the other night. That roof is like brand new. The roof on the gazebo is a little older, but it's still in good shape. I I have no further nothing guys down here. All right. Does anybody in the public wish to be heard on this application? Questions or comments? Okay. Thank you. I'll look for a motion to close the public hearing. So move second. All in favor?

I. Okay. You're welcome. Um application number four, Susanap Caputo for variation of section 156-9 seeking an area variance for permission to retain existing shed properties located at 216 Center Drive MOPAC and tax map 74.35-1-11. The code requires or allows 10 ft to the side 5T is existing. So a variance of 5T is being sought. And then for the rear, the code allows 10 ft. What's existing is 1.5. So, a variance of 8.5 is existing. All right. Good evening. State your name and address for the record. Good evening. Susan Caputo, 216 Center Drive, May, New York. Just turn the mic up to your mouth, please. Okay.

All right. Raise your right hand. Uh, swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, help you God. I do. Okay. How long has the shed been there? So, I've been there for a little over six and a half years. And the shed was there when I purchased the house. M um so I was just asking to keep the shed instead of just removing the cement block that it's sitting on as well as the shed. All right. I was there the other night, too. It's it's back up against the fence. So, it's screened from the neighbor behind you. And then there's greenery on the right side. It was getting dark when I was there, but Okay. Yeah. So, I think you're you're pretty sheltered and I don't think you have a lot of choices of where you could move this if Correct.

If you had to. It's it's tight. Your your house is pretty tight back there, too. What goes in the sheds? Just lawnmowers and storage. Basically, I just have my pool supplies and um folds and chairs and things like that. All right. There's no property you can purchase to bring this into conformance. Correct. Right. Um if you had to relocate it, what would be the cost? Uh I didn't look into that. I I'm sure. Could be could be some time and material involved. Right. I think it was on a base if I recall. Yes. Um picture. All right. Any questions down here, Will? No questions. No, guys. No. No questions. All right. Anybody in the public wish to be heard on this application? I'll look for a motion to close the

so moved. All right. All in favor? I. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Uh finally, last case this evening is uh Nelson LLC for a variation of section 156-9 and 156-36 21A. Uh I'm going to ask council, you going to read all this? Are you going to eventually hit these points because it's a lot to read. All right. So I don't want to duplicate efforts. Um you mean what the what variances we're asking for? Yes, I will address everything. All right. Uh good evening. You're you're a lawyer, I take it. Good evening. Yes, Jody Cross from Xarin and Steinmets. Is anybody else going to be speaking? And um only if you have questions if you want to swear them in just to

Yeah, I mean just to cover if if uh just in case Zach Pearson, Inside Engineering, Carl, New York. Uh raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help you God. I do. All right. What? She's a lot of freedom. Yeah. All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. We also have Mr. Albano here, the applicant. All right. If he comes up, we'll swear him in.

Sure. Um, so we're here in connection with uh the Carmel Resident uh Carmel Residential Town Homes project at 119 Seminary Hill Road. Um, we're seeking area dev area variances to affectuate the cluster development. So, by way of background, Mr. Albano, as everyone knows, is a longtime resident of the area, including living in this particular neighborhood for decades. He's seeking to subdivide his property, that's 23.4 24 acres uh for 39 townhouse units with associated improvements, roads, recreation, etc. There will be three lots. Two of the lots are already improved with single family homes and they're those two homes are going to stay. And then the third lot is the townhouse development. Um recently when the town reszone did their resoning in March, this property was reszoned to um senior multif family residential the SMR district where this is an as of right use. Um he's presently before the planning board for subdivision and site plan approval. This was deemed an unlisted action under SRA and uh the planning board is acting as lead agency and on September 11th they did adopt a negative declaration determining that the project would have no potential for significant adverse environmental impact. But through the secret process, as typically happens, the planning board and the applicant discussed the issues and after the whole process was seen through, there were changes made to the design and layout to ameliate potential impacts. And this included reducing originally it was a 50-unit plan. It's now 39 units. Units were up on the Caramel Hills ridge line and that was removed. Um, and part of the design is that the buildings are clustered tightly together to minimize disturbance. So, as of now, there's 56% of the property is being preserved. That's 13 acres. And the clustering also ensures that the units are as far away from other residents as possible. It's

more than 200 ft away from um the closest unit to a another residence. So, that brings us here why we're here tonight. We're seeking three variances. Two of the variances are required for lot two. Does she want to present to you guys or this is being presented to the public on via the camera here? But you're welcome to come. You're welcome to come around if you would like to see it. Do you guys have a second board at all that you can set up on This is the only one with this, right? Yeah. So, where is it? Actually, if you guys you want to just sit over here, we I'll open it up to the public afterwards. This is lot two. Okay.

Okay. So, is that currently Mr. Albano's house? Lot two. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. I can't I can't let you guys speak until I swear you in. I'm going to let the application applicant do his thing, but you can sit over there so you can see the board. I'll welcome that. So, lot two is a single family home. Um, there's a minimum lot area of 120,000 square feet. Can I just Can you maybe as you do this point out the different areas that you're discussing? You could take the microphone off. I have my handy helper. He's going to point to what we need to point to.

Um, so we're proposing um a minimum lot area. Sorry, just to take a step back. The minimum lot area in this zoning district for a single family house is 120,000 square feet. We're proposing 73,518 which is a variance of 46,482 ft or 38.7%. We're also seeking a minimum sideyard setback of 50 ft where it's being shown. We're proposing uh 32 ft for a variance of 18 ft or 36%. With regard to lot three, which is where the multif family units are, there's a building separation, minimum building separation in the code of 50 ft. We are proposing 20 ft uh for a variance of 30 ft or 60%. So, as the board knows, of course, in order uh to grant an area variance, there's a balancing of five factors to determine whether the benefit sought by the applicant um outweighs any potential um detriment to the community. So we set forth uh our argument in full in our letter. Um and but we just want to point out that the benefit that's being sought is to develop this property in environmentally conscious manner um respecting the process undertaken at the planning board to reach this design that ended up getting the neg. So just to briefly go through the factors and again I refer you to our letter which goes into them in more depth with case law etc. Um so the first factor is whether there would be an adverse impact to the community character or the neighborhood. This property was just reszoned in March by the town. The town sees this property as or the legislative board at least saw this property as uh appropriate for the SMR district and for multif family use. Um and that is consistent with the neighborhood. By tightly clustering the units, we're keeping again the closest residence is over 200 feet away. It keeps it further away from the

neighbors. Um, and I do want to point out that under the current zoning, just on density alone, they could this property would be able to handle 155 units. Originally only proposed 50 and that's been reduced back to the 39 that we mentioned before. And there's actually language in the NEG deck where the plan the planning board said that subject to the issuance of these variances, this project quote does not create a material conflict with the community's current development plans or goals. Was there a give back for like some of that open space that I see to the right on the uh site plan?

So, it wasn't it wasn't a give back. It was it was had to do with visual analysis, right? So, we had a 50 unit layout where these units kept coming and this is the top of the hill. So, we pulled back off the top of the hill and reduced down to 39 units. We're now tucked behind the high point on the property. So, it's hidden by the hill from and you won't see it when you're coming over looking pasty. Right. That's I mean the planning board put us through the we did a number of renditions of this uh rendering some different vantage points across town balloon test balloon test and the py built them up in the air py homes was route six and py homes looking p beyond that that was the most sensitive one that the planning board um was looking at

okay sorry you can continue

so the next factor is whether there are any feasible alternatives Um here the the benefit again to the applicant is maintaining this proposed layout which can't be achieved other by getting without getting the variances. Um to avoid the sensitive bridge line again the project density was reduced. Um the roads been shortened to tightly cluster the units and absent the requested variances um you would either have to create a longer road and additional disturbances and or reduce the density which would which could possibly render this unfeasible. Um so we would uh submit that there's no feasible alternative to these variances. Um this is the more environmentally conscious design. Um the next prong is whether or not excuse me the variances are substantial. So although the numbers may appear arguably to be large. We've got 36% 38.7% and 60%. That alone isn't enough to deem these substantial. The courts have held that you look at the totality of the circumstance. So even if the number is large in a vacuum, the issue is whether or not it causes an impact to community character or the environment. So the courts have found that even when numbers are large, that's not alone is not a basis to find um to deny a variance based on substantiality. The uh next factor is whether there'd be an adverse impact on the environment. Again, this has gone through um significant review before the planning board resulting in a negative declaration. Um the design again, I I keep saying it, but it is a design that's most uh protective of the environment. Um so granting the variances protects the environment rather than uh impacts it adversely. Last factor is whether the hardship self-created. The hardship here was created by the applicant's desire to provide this layout. Um, which minimizes disturbances and ensures marketability

as well. So, um, and it's also the result of a typical planning process. The planning board likes it clustered together again for the same reasons I keep mentioning.

Results in no visual impacts. Um, the applicant reduced the density by 20% to get this. So while the hardship may arguably arguably be self-created, that factor alone statutoily is not enough to just uh deny the variances. Um so having gone through the five factors, which you could read more about in our letter, uh we submit that the benefit to the applicant will outweigh any potential detriment and we request that the board one issue a negative declaration because this is an unlisted coordinated review and two grant the requested variances. And we're here to answer any questions. Okay. Um, as to the distance between the buildings, right, that's 20 20 feet, correct?

I know there was an issue with another property in Carmel that, you know, we had gotten a letter from the fire department late. It was late um submission for that application. So, just to allay any concerns there, if the public has some concerns, the fire department actually was in support of that distance between the buildings that they'd be able to maintain a fire if Okay, great. So, just to pass that along to the public or anyone else. Um, and this was pushed tighter because we were asking it to come down off the not we the planning board was asking to come down off the hill for visual reasons, right? Looks like he seated some units to to accommodate. So, you know, I think we appreciate that.

Say again. And they give up units also. That's what I'm saying. Yeah. So, all right. Board members, you just answer my question. Um, those 39 units, they look all identical in square footage. Is Is that correct? The layout, Zach, maybe you understand. According to architecturals, yes, they're uh threebedroom, twobedroom. Threebedroom. They're all three bedroom. They're all threebedroom. Yes. Some buildings are five and there's like a couple that are four, right? Correct. Clusters. Yes. Yeah. Very good. No, no other question. What is that like in the bottom? The blue green like in between the trees where are those pools? Yeah, there's a pool. No, on the other side. Go down on the bottom.

Keep going around the other way. There you go. Stormwater basin. What? Stormwater basin. Okay, good. I'm saying whoever lived there would hate it if it storm water. That's your runoff. Storm water treatment. Storm water. Correct. Yes. It's run off. Yeah, you're on a hill. So, you got to do something with the water percolates back into the ground. Oh, there is a pool cuz the one drawing I looked at it didn't I think it showed like a a fire pit and a cord, right? Is there a Yeah, that on the top of that square, right? So, there's a pool in that that area where that orange is. Yes. Okay. I think we had them put additional parking there, too, if I remember correct. Yeah, there's some additional cluster like 12 15 lots.

Additional parking for the clubhouse here. Clubhouse, pool, covered area, sport court. Yeah. The domestic water is from wells. Public water. That's public water. Yeah, that's all sewer there. Public water and sewer. That's right. Yep. Thank you. Well, Sylvia, nothing. Joel, has emergency services looked at this plan? As Sean mentioned, we got a letter from uh we as part of the planning board process, we did meet with the fire department and there there is a letter on the record that they've reviewed it. There is it's part of the process. Check the uh quantity also that was all checked off. Okay. Will anything? So, h how does this exactly benefit the community?

Yes. Because I actually live on that road. So all the cars that go to that house are going to be going by my house every day. Like I live on Seminary Hill Road. So I'm just kind of wondering what the actual benefit to the community is of having this. Well, first of all, um the issue for variance is uh the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. So is there a detriment to the community by having this things like traffic, etc. That was all vetted out in the planning process. and I don't respectfully believe that it's part of this variance process. Um, so there was traffic significant traffic studies done and the determination that there was no adverse uh impact. Okay.

Yeah. So that's more of a planning question. Got it. All right. That's it for the board. Any anybody from the public wish to speak on this application? Please come in. Make sure you sign in with your name, address, and phone number. Okay. And then tell us what your name and address, please. My name is Leslie Klein. I live on 10 Mechanic Street in Carmel, New York. All right, raise your right hand. Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth. Nothing about the truth. So, I'll help you God. Yes, I do. All right. Go ahead.

So, um I was here for the whole planning, uh the zoning board meetings, and I was not in favor of this community. It's right behind my house. Um, I don't think that you should give him a variance to narrow the property because that just will open the floodgates down the road for him to build more, which I believe that he will. And also, I mean, I don't Where is this pool? Where does this pool back up to? Does it back up to my house? Because I hear Carl back there now like uh excavating and everything else. So, if you're thinking that it's not going to negatively impact the neighborhood, I think you're incorrect because if the pool is like right in my backyard, I'm going to hear all these people.

Would you mind pointing out the pool to her if you don't mind? No, I see where the pool is on there. I don't know where it backs up to. Like, where is that? I live on Mechanic Street. So, yeah, mechanics. I I just want to ask the board if you want us to answer these questions. If if it doesn't mind if she's asking where on a map that Can we look on the map? I'll give you a chance to respond, council. So, this is my house right here. This is your pool. This is my house.

I understand. But all this property here, people are going to be like, "Right in my backyard." Um, this a mountain is technically right in my backyard. Please, you got to grab the microphone. It's being recorded.

So, those cluster homes are in my backyard. We bought our house, single family house, watershed property to protect us from this. We've paid taxes for 43 years to protect us from this. And this is what we get. We get no protection from the board. We get no protection from the zoning board of appeals or the building department. I apologize to be disrespectful, but this did not come out until 3 days before the initial meeting in August when a lot of people are on vacation. So, I totally disapprove of this whole project. The pool behind my house, the cluster homes that I'm going to be able to see their roofs, the traffic that probably is going to end up on Mechanic Street as a thoroughare to Stonelay because they're not going to go all the way down seminary to get to Stonelay. You know it. You know it. You know it.

They're going to be going by my house. All right. Please address the board. not, but we all know it. So, I am opposed to it. I don't want to give the variance. Um, you're going to do what you're going to do, but I'm opposed. Okay. Appreciate your thoughts. And I just have another question. Have the traffic studies taken into account the building of Well, that's a question for the applicant. So, let's leave it with the public right now. So, you can ask when when I'll let them come back up. I can't ask questions. It's disgraceful. Anybody else wish to be heard? Yeah, sir. Take a second. No, you got to you got to state your name and address. Bert Bolasco, 7 Pond Lane, Carmel.

Please speak into the microphone. Ma'am, if you're going to keep it up, I'm going to ask you to leave the room. Okay. I've given you your time. Thank you. Bert Bolasco, 7 Little Pond Lane, Carmel, New York. All right. Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? So help you God. Yes, I do. Go ahead. All right. Take the microphone. with you. Take the microphone with you. Take the mic, please. You can pull it off the pedestal. Yeah. Thank you. I would like you to show me. Yeah. Seminary Hill Road. How? And it's right here.

Okay. So, essenti is is only off of Seminary Hill Road. There's an emergency gated emergency access that comes back to Albano Ridge for emergency access only. All traffic will be to Seminary Hill Road. That's for fire trucks or fire truck access, emergency access, gated on both sides. Okay. How does that impact this is this is a an access to Little Pond Manor, 21 homes right here. So you got 21 homes coming onto the road and now you're adding another group of homes.

Right. So the traffic was extensively studied at the planning board for the for the just for the board's edification. Our traffic consultant went back and forth with the town for a couple months back and forth. There's traffic mitigation measures that are proposed as part of this project in the area along Seminary Hill Road. It was a focal point of that review with the with the planning board. That and visual analysis were the two main items that we addressed back and forth. Okay. The other question I have, have you looked at um water pressure issues? They did some work back in this area and it affected the water pressure for Little Pond Manor. Right. So, not that it has anything to do with the variance, but yes, we did at the planning board level.

We are we are looping the water main through from Seminary Hill Road through the site through to Mechanic Street. That provides redundancy to the town system as there's another way for water to get to and through it. The engineering department's reviewed it. A third party or your town's consulting reviewing engineer has also reviewed it. Okay, those are my questions. All right, thank you sir. Just looping it in increases quality and quantity for the water. So sir, just write your name, address, phone number. It's redundant now. The water correct. Okay, but again those are planning issues. Planet board. Yep. Anybody else wish to be heard on this application?

All right, ma'am. Do you want to come back up and answer? And Will, I think has further questions for you. Sucks being short. Um, sorry. Um, it's tough being a tall. My husband's 63 and a half. I'm 5 foot. Um, so I I think this board is aware of what this the applications that are in front of the board. Um, if you have questions for us about the variances, happy to answer them. All right. Well, you had a question you want to ask? No. Okay. All right. At this point, I'll I'm the only one that lives in that neighborhood. I know. I'll look to close the public hearing on this application. So, so moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I.

Okay. Uh, at this point, there's no input from anybody on any application. We're going to adjudicate the cases this evening. Starting with application number one, Mark Anthony. I'll look for a motion. Zeus, you got seeker. Oh, we got Sorry. We have to do that. There was a short form there. Do we have to do that first though, Greg? Uh, yes. You want to make a secret determination before you decide the application. I'm going to take you through very quickly. Was it filled in on there? I thought it was filled in on the application already. Was it

part one was for the board does part two? Yeah. Right. Okay. So, I'm going to take you through the questions and then uh we'll see where you end up at the end. All right. So, with respect to this application uh part two, first question is will the action proposed create a material conflict with your existing adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? The answers are yes, yes, no, or small, or moderate to large. Okay, you can say no if it's no, but those are the categories, right? Wait, I'm sorry. Say it again, Greg. I apologize. It's it's your answer is no or small impact or moderate to large. Two categories of answers, right? Right. So, the question is, will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations?

No. Small, maybe small. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of land? Intensity of the land. Intensity of use. No. Okay. No. Or small or moderate to large? No. Will the proposed action impair the quality or character of the existing community? Existing because it's already there. No. Say no. Will the proposed action have an impact on environmental characteristic cause the establishment of a critical environmental area CA? No. No.

Will the proposed action cause an increase Sorry. Will the proposed action result in adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. No. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. Will the proposed action impact existing public and private water supplies? No. No. Because it's already existing. That's on this. Will the proposed action impact existing public private wastewater treatment utilities? No. No. No. Will the proposed action impair the character, quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural or aesthetic resources? No. No.

No. Okay. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources, wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna? No. Will the proposed action result in increase in the potential for erosing erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. No. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human? No. No. All right. So, you answered no or small to all of them. So, you want to entertain a motion for a negative declaration? I'll make a motion for a negative declaration. All right. Do I have a second? So moved. Do all in favor? I. Okay. Now you can act. You made a negative deck. You can act on the uh the application. All right. So look for a motion on this application. Motion to accept. Do I have a second? Second. I say approve.

So just the motion to approve the application. Can we amend? Motion to approve rather than accept the application. When you accept it, you accept it for the wrong motion to approve. I'm assuming that's what John meant. Yes. Yeah. But let's get it right for the record. Motion to I'll look for a motion to approve this application. There you go. So, John made the Yes, I'll second. Second for the motion. All right. Any any discussions? No. All right. All in favor? I Okay. Application number two, Fernando Medina. Motion to approve. Motion to hold. No, we got to hold him over. That's right. No show. He said he was governor. Mike, can you He said he did. Yeah.

He told us when they met us. Yeah, we spoke to him. We walked out the day. I wish I would We would have told he said he was on vacation. Oh, wait. Is that what he said? I didn't. Yeah, when we were leaving. All right. Can you have Dawn reach out to them tomorrow and say, "Look, if if you're not coming, we're going to dismiss you without prejudice." And then you're you're going to file something against them, right? If that happens. Yeah. There. Oh, they wanted I thought it was existing. We move. Hold it over. All right. I'll look for a motion to hold that application over. So moved. Seconded by second. Fadine. Speak up. All in favor? I. Okay.

All right. Application. Pomeierro. Look for a motion to approve. Motion to grant. Motion to grant. Second by who? So moved. John. All in favor? I. All right. Application number four, Susan Caputo. Look for a motion. Motion to grant. Do I have a second? Second. Claudine. All in favor? I. All right. Granted. And application number five, Nelson LLC. I'll look for a motion. Motion to grant. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussions? All in favor? Take a roll call. Take a roll call. All right. We say All right. Will you forot? No, you're against the motion. Yeah.

All right, Julie. There's no use on your side. Four. There's no use on your no use. Four. I'm thinking four. I hope for the motion and I'm for the motion. We don't do decks on area anyway. So, uh, and deck. All right. NE deck on the project. All right. All right. So, the motion carries. Yes. All right. Order to. All right. Um, minutes from August. I'll look for a motion to accept the minutes as written and or amended. As written and or amended. So moved. Do I have a second? So moved. All in favor? I.

And I'll look for a motion to accept the minutes for September 25th as written and andor amended. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? I. Do I have a motion to close the hearing? So moved. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Good night, everybody. All right. Thank you.